Transcript The deterrent effects of drug detection dogs on drug use in NSW

The deterrent effects of drug detection dogs
on drug use in NSW, Australia
Caitlin Hughes,¹ Don Weatherburn², Robert
MacCoun 3
¹ National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW
Australia
² NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
3 Berkeley School of Law, University of California
Applied Research in Crime and Justice
Background
• Deterrence has long been a cornerstone to drug law enforcement
(DLE) efforts, under the assumption that police can deter,
discourage or prevent drug use
• Yet, there has remained little research into this area
For example, in 2000 Weatherburn et al. noted that “although
current drug policy relies heavily on deterrence, little research
has been conducted to examine its efficacy”
• Lack of evidence is increasingly problematic as:
• Drug law enforcement subsumes lion’s share of resources
• And police continue to roll out new and often controversial
‘deterrent’ strategies in the absence of evidence of their intended
or unintended effects
Drug detection
dogs
• A high visibility policing strategy
• Expanded across many parts of
the world, including the UK,
Europe, USA and Australia
• Used in multiple settings
including licensed premises,
music festivals, public transport
– often without warrant
• Remains considerable
controversy about their useparticularly claims that can deter
drug offending
Ongoing media scrutiny
Drug searches: thousands
falsely identified by sniffer
dogs – SMH – Nov 2014
64% of searches found no
drugs in 2013.
• Nearly 17,800 people
searched.
• 2.44% of searches led to
successful prosecutions.
Drug detection dogs – the
evidence/claims?
• Controlled studies have showed dogs can accurately detect drugs,
but more so cannabis/hashish. And less accurate in outdoor settings
• Reviews of drug detection dogs suggest little deterrent effect
• The NSW Ombudsman (2006) found that “[t]here is little or no evidence
to support claims that drug detection dog operations deter drug use,
reduce drug-related crime, or increase perceptions of public safety”
• Also showed a high false positive rate (74%) and raised concerns that
they increase harmful user behaviour
• But police continue to argue they do deter:
• “Sniffer dogs are close to 100% accurate”
• “The dogs have a strong deterrence factor: they not only lead to the
seizure of drugs from dealers and users, but people also dump their
drugs when they see the dogs. Thus these drugs are not consumed and
the risk avoided” (NSW Police, 2011).
Methodological stumbling block
• To refute or support such claims need to:
1) measure crime that has ’not occurred’ - that by
definition will not show up in police data
2) provide a valid counter-factual – how many more (or less)
people would have offended in the absence of police presence
3) know whether any change in behaviour is attributable to the
police – and to disentangle effects in the real world
• In this study we therefore seek to pilot a new approach to assessing
deterrent effects using experimental deterrence vignettes
• A proven research method used in psychology, behavioural
economics, public policy and criminology to provide insight into
decision making processes and intended behaviours (Aviram, 2012;
Nagin, 2013; Wallander, 2009)
Objectives
1. To assess the extent to which using police with drug detection dogs
at outdoor music festival in NSW reduces the:
• overall prevalence of illicit drug use
• overall quantity of drug consumed
• harmfulness of the drug use, as defined in terms of the type of
drug(s) consumed and venue of consumption (inside versus
outside the festival venue)
2. To identify the sub-populations that are most and least likely to
change their drug use behavior in response to different policing
modalities
Methodology
• A purpose built online survey was developed involving three different
hypothetical policing scenarios that could be encountered by
patrons at an outdoor music festival:
• No police presence
• Police presence in the absence of drug detection dogs
• Police presence in the presence of drug detection dogs
• Using a repeated measures design each set of scenarios was
administered to 513 people aged 18+ who attend outdoor music
festivals and reside in NSW
• Under each scenario potential patrons were given the option to use
five illicit drugs (cannabis, ecstasy, meth/amphetamine, cocaine and
GHB) and asked whether they would engage in illicit drug use and if
so the type of drug(s), quantity and location of use (inside or outside
festival venue)
Sample (n=513)
Demographics
• Mean age 23.85 (SD=7.6)
• 67.1% male
• 82.7% completed year 12 or
equivalent, and 55.0% had
additional qualifications
• 42.3% attended only 1-2
festivals in last 12 months
Illicit drug use
• 84.6% any lifetime use
• 78.0% any recent use
• 65.3% any use at last festival
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Last festival
Any
Ecstasy
Cannabis
Cocaine
Meth
Other illicit
NPS
Perceptions of likelihood of
police detection
Police
with
dogs
Supply
Possess
Use
Police
w/out
dogs
Supply
Possess
Use
Supply
No Police
Possess
Use
0%
Very likely
10%
20%
Likely
30%
40%
50%
60%
Neither likely nor unlikely
70%
80%
Unlikely
90%
100%
Very unlikely
Impact on prevalence and net
quantity of use
Impact on type of drug use – total
pop
Impact on type of use – amongst
users only
100%
90%
Percentage of all drugs consumed
80%
70%
60%
GHB
50%
Meth
Cocaine
40%
Ecstasy
30%
Cannabis
20%
10%
0%
No police
Police without dogs
Police scenario
Police with dogs
Discussion and conclusion
• Many limitations: intended, not actual behaviour, non-representative
sample, NSW context alone, impacts on drug use alone
• Provides tentative evidence that police presence with drug detection
dogs may elicit some deterrent effects
• However, the fact that so many people report that they would
continue to use regardless of the presence or absence of police with
dogs suggests their effects are less than purported by police
• The range of impacts use engagement, drug type, venue of
consumption and quantity raises even further questions about the
extent to which dogs are ‘consistent’ with harm minimisation
principles
Discussion and conclusion
 That said, the findings also suggest net impacts may vary across
policing approaches
 This suggests that there may be the capacity to push for strategies
that produce the least net harm
 Next steps: extending the current study to assess deterrent effects
of multiple policing strategies taking into account impacts on use,
possession, purchasing and trafficking and different target settings
 In so doing, we hope to increase the capacity for more informed
responses to drug-related offending; both by police and
governments
Thank you!
Dr Caitlin Hughes
E: [email protected]
P: 02 9385 0132
W: www.ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au